Back in the late ‘90s, there used to be a James Bond newsgroup which apparently was read (and sometimes heeded) by the JB producers. At the time, I was particularly critical of Pierce Brosnan (I infamously gave him the nickname of “Pirs Bonbons”). He may have looked the JB part, but his insufferable smugness/arrogance with a touch of silliness (as with Roger Moore still channeling Simon Templar/The Saint in his portrayal, Brosnan was still doing Remington Steele) made him the Bond you just wanted to slap for being a jackass. I complained he was making Bond too silly (the scene of him adjusting his necktie underwater during a boat chase when it momentarily went upside down), and with the next casting, they needed to go with a more serious-minded actor.
I have to admit to not seeing those films you cited from Owen’s oeuvre, however your complaints about Owen’s acting skills remain my virtually identical criticisms of Craig. It’s almost like the producers took my complaints about Brosnan and went in the complete opposite direction, a soulless, bored, bitterly cold blonde thug. No charm, no humanity, just a person distantly staring off into space. A thoroughly miserable soul. If I had been him with that entire outlook, I’d have splattered my brains after Vesper Lind’s death. I’m frankly flabbergasted (gobsmacked ?) that he has found any popularity in the role whatsoever. But the viewing public’s preferences (and voting habits) are often counter to mine.
As was cited in another recent thread, “Moonraker” was a top box-office draw, but other than being high camp, as a serious Bond film it is utter rubbish (I treat it as a comedy, the best way to watch it). By that reckoning, you’d want to keep making “Moonrakers” to keep the bucks rolling in. The public was less enamored of its follow-up, “For Your Eyes Only”, where Rog finally jettisoned the lunacy of the ‘70s films, returned to earth and became the Cold Warrior more appropriate for the character and politically relevant.
Continuing in the theme of box office draw, this 4th film of Craig’s may have been one too many, as it is already apparent that the bad reviews are taking a toll, and it is underperforming “Skyfall.” As cited already, and Craig let the cat out of the bag, how “thrilled” he was to do this one, and it shows.
As for Owen, I watch his Cinemax series, “The Knick”, and he acquits himself in the role quite well. But I still watch him with the lamentation that he should’ve been in these 4 Bond movies instead of Craig.
Touché.
The one point I'd say Craig has one up on Owen is brute physicality. While both look like they can fight, Craig looks like he has fought. I almost half-expect to see he has 'cauliflower ears' that are commonly seen in boxers due to injury to ear cartilage. He's definitely the most physical of the Bonds, and that's one area he doesn't need to act. Owen can do similar, but for him it's more like an otter underwater as compared to Craig's Pike.
As for Moonraker - I have the entire Bond collection up to Skyfall, and I am proud to say I have never brought myself to watch Moonraker. I have tried, but sadly (fortunately?_ to no avail.
Back to Craig. The more I think about him and Owen the more I realize that they are somewhat interchangeable. Maybe not like to like (i.e. not lion/tiger, where it doesn't matter much since beneath the skin the beasts are similar enough as not to matter) but more like a wolf/coyote (or jaguar/leopard), where they look similar but are actually different in many ways. Again, I'm not sure who is the wolf and who is the coyote between the two, but they are definitely both canids. Also, even though Craig is the bigger box office draw, that is as a result of the Bond movies. It is very possible that had Owen gotten the gig he could also have done well given the same exact scripts and timing.
Both of them, after all, follow the same 'realistic' trend and thus would have produced very similar outcomes.
As for this movie. I have watched it, and apart from it being a tad too long (actually, too long at 2.5 hours) it was an enjoyable movie. Was it better than Skyfall? Absolutely not, but then again there was little chance for ANY follow-on Bond movie to be better than Skyfall. Skyfall was simply a movie too good to follow, in much the same way that the third Batman movie (The Dark Knight Rises) by Nolan was NOT a bad movie, but because it followed The Dark Knight it seemed to be a 'bad' movie. It doesn't matter who produced/acted/directed the Spectre ...or what the script was or may have been ...it was never going to shine bright right after Skyfall.
I enjoyed the movie, and while I see some of the points some of the critics raised, I believe that even if those points weren't there the critics would still have found more.
The same fate awaits the sequel to Avatar.
Agree 100%. I was not happy with Brosnan or Craig as Bond, for OPPOSITE reasons.
Brosnan's Bond was never believable as a real secret agent and his casting was TOO "Hollywood" as the PERFECT unflappable ladies man with chiseled good looks. Brosnan's Bond was always so smug and in-control you wanted to smack him.
The Craig films went 100% in the opposite direction. Suddenly Bond is 100% believable as a ruthless government agent who won't hesitate to kill you in cold blood, but who utterly lacks ANY sort of wit, charm, or grace that are key to the character. A wooden stump would be more compelling in the title role.
Hollywood similarly went 180o degrees with the Batman franchise. We went from George Clooney playing George Clooney in a rubber suit and lacking any sort of gravitas in the role of a borderline psycho who dresses up in a mask to take out criminals... to Christian Bale overacting in the EXTREME to portray Batman as a enraged, growling, out of control manic who spits all his lines out in a throat cancer voice.
Batman Begins and Casino Royale began the "reboot" craze a decade ago and now Hollywood has gotten to the point of needlessly "rebooting" franchises every 3 films, whether they need it or not. It would be a fitting irony if the craptastic "Fan4astic" remake and Specter kill off Hollywood's reboot fetish.